Developers no longer have to pay to push out updates.

"Microsoft eliminated fees for Title Updates on Xbox 360 Arcade games in April 2013. We’re constantly evaluating our policies and implementing feedback. While our development policies are confidential, and will remain so, we’re pleased to say that this is just one of many ongoing changes and improvements we've made to ensure Xbox is the best place possible for developers and gamers."

ORIGINAL STORY

Microsoft is apparently relaxing its stance on making developers pay thousands of dollars to certify post-release, downloadable updates for Xbox 360 games, changing a policy that drew controversy from development houses small and large.

Eurogamer reports that "multiple development sources" say that Microsoft has stopped charging for recertification after the first downloadable title update for both retail and digital titles. Microsoft will still charge a fee for initial certification of new software, as it always has, and the company never charged for the first update after release.

The recertification charge for updates most famously drew controversy when Fez developer Phil Fish complained loudly that Microsoft's asking price of "tens of thousands of dollars" was preventing him from releasing a patch that would fix some game-breaking problems for some players.

"Had Fez been released on Steam instead of [Xbox Live Arcade], the game would have been fixed two weeks after release, at no cost to us," Fish complained at the time. "We already owe Microsoft a LOT of money for the privilege of being on their platform. People often mistakenly believe that we got paid by Microsoft for being exclusive to their platform. Nothing could be further from the truth. WE pay THEM."

In an interview with Hookshot Inc. last year, Double Fine's Tim Schafer said it cost $40,000 to deploy a patch for an Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 game. "We can’t afford that!" he added. "Open systems like Steam that allow us to set our own prices, that’s where it’s at, and doing it completely alone like Minecraft. That’s where people are going.”

Microsoft did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

People often mistakenly believe that we got paid by Microsoft for being exclusive to their platform. Nothing could be further from the truth. WE pay THEM

So the only benefit to being on their platform is very limited marketing resources? Really? Why would you take that deal?

Maybe because they could only afford to use XNA to code it, and an eventual decision to change platforms would be too costly for an already very delayed game. Maybe Fez II could be coded in a C++ API or even using MonoGame (for easy support for multiple platforms).

Anyone remember when video games didn't need to be patched to be 99% bug free? Sigh, those were the days...

I do indeed miss those days. However, to be fair - those games were far less complex than the current generation of games. Collision detection, artificial intelligence, and the sheer number of concurrent things happening at any given time have increased - plus the save file management and network management aspects. I'm sure there was some degree of "we have to make sure this is right" with older generation games because they didn't have the option to patch, but I can't help but be skeptical that there will be even more significant issues with the coming generation(s) that rely on this cloud processing aspect.

Ahhh the days when your code had to be good enough that once it shipped you were done. It was released. That was it.

In all fairness, it's not too surprising that game updates/patches started getting released more often after the whole DLC/expansion pack became the norm for 360 games. Plus you have to consider that sometimes software updates with the console itself don't always play nice with the games, which means that the devs need to release patches to make sure game and console are in perfect harmony[relatively speaking anyway].

Good to hear that Microsoft has dropped the "pay us so you can fix your game" fee though. Maybe all those little graphics glitches for games like ME2 will finally get fixed [one can dream right?]

Anyone remember when video games didn't need to be patched to be 99% bug free? Sigh, those were the days...

I do indeed miss those days. However, to be fair - those games were far less complex than the current generation of games. Collision detection, artificial intelligence, and the sheer number of concurrent things happening at any given time have increased - plus the save file management and network management aspects. I'm sure there was some degree of "we have to make sure this is right" with older generation games because they didn't have the option to patch, but I can't help but be skeptical that there will be even more significant issues with the coming generation(s) that rely on this cloud processing aspect.

Well at least for consoles, this was still the case not so long ago. It is only really in the current generation that we really started having patches for consoles. Although for PC software its been decades.

I also remember when games were always purpose-coded explicitly for one type of hardware and didn't release on two or three platforms each time. Seriously, just because most big-selling games used to be developed by a dozen people in someone's house and sometimes weren't offered the chance to patch doesn't mean they need to now. You know, back in the days where multiplayer meant someone sitting next to you and the beta test team also consisted of the development team almost exclusively, I could see complete QA testing by release a much more plausible concept.

Anyone remember when video games didn't need to be patched to be 99% bug free? Sigh, those were the days...

Not really. I remember a time when people wrongly assumed that games were 99% bug free because there wasn't much of an Internet to spread bug reports on, though. Could that be what you're thinking of?

I mean, in Super Mario Bros. you can slide through blocks with quick reflexes. Pac-Man lets you walk straight through ghosts often enough that you're almost sure to see it happen at least once within maybe three bucks worth of quarters. In the original Final Fantasy a huge percentage of the spells either did nothing at all or worked backwards from what was actually intended. These kinds of bugs have only multiplied as games have gotten more complex, but they have always - always - been there.

It's good they're moving this way, but I suspect it's more out of desperation to improve their image than anything else. The system just isn't indie friendly the way Steam is (or even the PSN, which publishes several promising then-indies).

I also remember when games were always purpose-coded explicitly for one type of hardware and didn't release on two or three platforms each time. Seriously, just because most big-selling games used to be developed by a dozen people in someone's house and sometimes weren't offered the chance to patch doesn't mean they need to now. You know, back in the days where multiplayer meant someone sitting next to you and the beta test team also consisted of the development team almost exclusively, I could see complete QA testing by release a much more plausible concept.

Back in the day we had to walk up hill, both ways, just to play a video game. Darn kids these days. Get off my lawn!

/sacrasm, I kid because I have thought the same exact thing, but time marches on and things change no matter what. Thinking things were so much better in "the good ol' days" is almost impossible for us not to do, but it doesn't make it any more true. Our memories are not exactly what happened, and they tend to be viewed through rose-colored glasses.

Anyone remember when video games didn't need to be patched to be 99% bug free? Sigh, those were the days...

Aye, Tetris was bug free.

/sarcasm because Tetris and Battlefield 3 are so simply to do right in the first time.

)

Battlefield 3 is the third time. Should have gotten it right by now.

Makes me think of the floating objects bug in Oblivion, Fallout, NewVegas and Skyrim. Pick an item off the table, and all the other objects immediately float up just above it. Apparently, not a big enough issue that for someone to fix over nearly 10 years of development time.

Hopefully this doesn't lead to more games being released "unfinished" since now devs can just throw out downloadable updates with no repercussions.

That's what I was thinking. It probably also provides incentive to get the release more polished before launch so you don't force hundreds of megabytes of patch downloads on users in order to fix something "later."

In all fairness, it's not too surprising that game updates/patches started getting released more often after the whole DLC/expansion pack became the norm for 360 games.

It'll happen even more over time. It's how publishers get around used games sales (GameStop, etc). Yeah, you can buy the used CD but the majority of content is DLC, which you have to pay for even if you get a used game (IF you can get it with a used game).

I also remember when games were always purpose-coded explicitly for one type of hardware and didn't release on two or three platforms each time. Seriously, just because most big-selling games used to be developed by a dozen people in someone's house and sometimes weren't offered the chance to patch doesn't mean they need to now. You know, back in the days where multiplayer meant someone sitting next to you and the beta test team also consisted of the development team almost exclusively, I could see complete QA testing by release a much more plausible concept.

Back in the day we had to walk up hill, both ways, just to play a video game. Darn kids these days. Get off my lawn!

/sacrasm, I kid because I have thought the same exact thing, but time marches on and things change no matter what. Thinking things were so much better in "the good ol' days" is almost impossible for us not to do, but it doesn't make it any more true. Our memories are not exactly what happened, and they tend to be viewed through rose-colored glasses.

That, and they were just different development styles back then. I think the hardest part about QA these days is how a publisher's deadline turns into a commandment from On High(tm). If publishers would stop forcing release dates down on developers like an angry pack of lions salivating at the thought of gnawing on lightly-seasoned developers and instead take the time to actually help developers fix problems, we might not need so many post-release patches.

Then again, I remember loving Doom and that game had eight major versions (1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.666, 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9) in its own right, so we've been dealing with updates a lot longer than we think...and id/GT wouldn't have dreamed of going to console until at least 1.666.

Hopefully this doesn't lead to more games being released "unfinished" since now devs can just throw out downloadable updates with no repercussions.

Those updates still have to be certified by Microsoft, I believe, even if they no longer charge for it. That means delays in getting your update out and unhappy fans waiting for fixes, so I doubt many more developers will be eager to rush things out the door now.

If you make it "too easy" to patch, then developers are going to get lazy (they will).

Realistically there should be some barrier to "spamming" patches all the time because you want to release a really buggy product.As people have already mentioned, there are big titles with noticable and consistent silly bugs (mostly from Bethesda related games...), but the less incentive you create to remove *most* bugs, the less incentive a publisher or small developer will have to fix those bugs before release.

Sure, you can't expect everything to be perfect, but there's a balance between "patch as much as you want" and "release something playable at the start".

I guess people remember that War Z game on Steam? Got pulled because it was a pile of crap and was going to be patched to add all the features at a later date? The same Steam that the Fez developer says is awesome because you can patch whenever you want?They have partly gone another route by letting people sell alphas so they don't need to pretend like a game is ready for release, instead of restricting patching, but realistically it's almost dangerous to have zero restrictions. Good that Microsoft is reducing theirs, but there should still be some in place of some kind, not necessarily monetary.

If you make it "too easy" to patch, then developers are going to get lazy (they will).

Realistically there should be some barrier to "spamming" patches all the time because you want to release a really buggy product.

I think it won't be so "easy" to send a lot of patches, probably they will enforce a monthly or 2 month limit for each "free" patch; if you want to bypass the limit you'd have to pay for the certification team extra work. Even so, buggy games are very bad for PR, so I don't think the market will be full of unfinished games.

Realistically there should be some barrier to "spamming" patches all the time because you want to release a really buggy product.

Surely this would deter people from buying the game. If not, then I don't see how charging for updates would help, since there would be no reason to update if people are willing to buy crappy, unfinished games. This only affects companies that want to improve their games to please their customers, and such developers would obviously not intentionally pump out rubbish.

I don't know why people are getting all bent out of shape about free updates meaning games will be released buggy and incomplete. So don't buy those games. There doesn't need to be an artificial punishment for releasing buggy incomplete games because customers thinking your games are buggy and incomplete IS the punishment. Don't buy games from developers who make a habit of doing this, problem solved. If you absolutely HAVE to have the latest elder scrolls rehash on the FIRST DAY regardless of the state of it then you have only yourself to blame for the release state of games.

I've hit the game-breaking bug in Fez, and I'd be very happy at the time if the fix was already applied. I guess Microsoft is changing its collective mind a lot in the few weeks.

Is it the waterfall glitch? If you save at the waterfall and quit once you start up a new game the game will hang at the intro screen repeatedly. You have to flush the cache (thereby removing any system applied updates to your games) and ignore the request to download a patch once the game starts. Pick up from your game save, go to another area and save, and then quit to the dashboard. Restart the game again, apply the online patch, and once the game restarts you can continue on normally.

If it's not that glitch I'm not sure what you can do as that's the only one I've heard of that's really been observed to hang the game without fail every time.

I find it hard to believe that Fez wasn't profitable on 360. Profitable meaning that Phil Fish and co didn't receive any money from it. His situation is financially complicated he's had business people that i'm fairly certain floated his bills during development after he ran out of money from his government grant, but then goes on to say in indie game the movie that his ex-partner is going to become a millionaire off of Phil's work. I believe his point and right to be mad about the cost of a patch, but i think he presents his relationship with MS as a one sided one.

It's worth noting that Phil Fish put himself in that spot. It doesn't invalidate his claims that the bugs would have been fixed more quickly if he was not charged for patches 2 through n. Not mentioning though that the quality issues were entirely his fault seems to imply Fez's quality was a victim of Microsoft policies. It wasn't. It was a victim of really, really poor development and testing.

I think Microsoft's reason for having that cost is all the testing they do to ensure that the game meets all their standards (When you bring up the dock, the game pauses. If a controller disconnects, the game prompts you to reinsert it, or at least pauses. There is support for blah blah blah...)Thing is, one of those standards is "The game doesn't crash." So by my metrics/morality, I think Fez should have gotten a free pass on that update, given that a game-breaking bug had gotten past Microsoft's QA team. This is not to say that companies should let their publisher do QA for them, but still, if that's what they're paying for in order to get published, that's what they should get.

I don't know why people are getting all bent out of shape about free updates meaning games will be released buggy and incomplete. So don't buy those games. There doesn't need to be an artificial punishment for releasing buggy incomplete games because customers thinking your games are buggy and incomplete IS the punishment. Don't buy games from developers who make a habit of doing this, problem solved. If you absolutely HAVE to have the latest elder scrolls rehash on the FIRST DAY regardless of the state of it then you have only yourself to blame for the release state of games.

Unfortunately when the major publishers do this, there's no way of telling which games are in a state fit for release and which were not ... until weeks after. Personally these days, I never pre-order and do not buy my games on launch day. I've been burned too many times. That and, usually if you wait even a short time, you can get a pretty decent deal.

There shouldn't have to be a need for artificial punishment. But it does create an perverse incentive to do this and based on past history ... it's something that people are getting increasingly angry about.

The average forum poster can't even put together a few bug-free sentences - what do you think happens when an over-worked, under-paid software developer has to churn out thousands of lines of code? Then make it work with the tens of thousands of lines of code some other group of poor schlubs are churning out...